Translating Dail debates

expectationlost

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2015030600011?opendocument

Ba mhaith liom an méid a dúirt mé ag cruinniú coiste le déanaí mar gheall ar an bhfianaise atá ag Amnesty International maidir leis na gialla a bhí i Guantánamo a cheartú. Níl fianaise acu ó na gialla sin. Is léir, áfach, ó na ríomhphoist ó wikleaks agus a leithéid go raibh Aerfort na Sionainne gafa leis an cleachtas gránna sin ar a dtugtar "extraordinary rendition".

apologies for not knowing my language but it seems there is no translation of dail debate speeches from irish to english

Grudaire

expectationlost wrote: »

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2015030600011?opendocument



apologies for not knowing my language but it seems there is no translation of dail debate speeches from irish to english

I don't think Dáil debates are translated, unlike official documents. That goes both ways.

translate.google.ie should give you the gist of what is being said. If you have specific questions ask again here

expectationlost

Grudaire wrote: »

translate.google.ie should give you the gist of what is being said. If you have specific questions ask again here

I already used google translate it doesn't quite make sense, Im looking for as close as possible to what he said, in Irish, in English not just the gist.

expectationlost

Grudaire wrote: »

I don't think Dáil debates are translated, unlike official documents. That goes both ways.

translate.google.ie should give you the gist of what is being said. If you have specific questions ask again here

https://translate.google.ie/translate?sl=ga&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%2520authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2015030600011%3Fopendocument&edit-text=&act=url

this is what google translate gives you

We will not try to wrap up quickly if you give me a chance. I want what I said at a recent committee meeting due to the light of Amnesty International on the hostages in Guantanamo was correct. There is evidence from the jaws so. It is clear, however, from the mailing of such wikleaks and Shannon had caught the ugly practice known as "extraordinary rendition"

got a rough translation
"To correct the record, Amnesty didn't say Shannon used in extraordinary rendition, but wikileaks shows it was"

still need a proper translation, as whether he continuing to claim that prisoners were brought through Shannon

does he say he put words in Amnesty Ireland's mouth, or the claims comes directly from the prisoners mouths? or something like that?

this is the committee record he is correcting
https://www.kildarestreet.com/committees/?id=2015-02-18a.1156&s=rendition+section%3Acommittees#g1158

he said Amnesty International said, I know they didn't, which is why I contacted them to get him to correct which he did.

Grudaire

He says he wants to correct what was said:

Níl fianaise acu ó na gialla sin.

They don't have evidence from those sources (jaws)

Is léir, áfach, ó na ríomhphoist ó wikleaks agus a leithéid go raibh Aerfort na Sionainne gafa leis an cleachtas gránna sin ar a dtugtar "extraordinary rendition".

It's clear however from the wikileaks emails and so on that the disgusting exercise called "extrodinary rendition" was rampant in Shannon airport

Not exact translation but hopefully a bit more use for you.
Out of curiosity will you be using this for anything? It's an interesting topic.

expectationlost

still unsure if in that correction he is still claiming prisoners were brought through Shannon Airport, because I've campaigned against its use for all those things but I don't think prisoners were brought through and it obviously doesn't help anyone for a TD to be misquoting human rights groups, puting words in their mouth as he did.

I've no problem with him speaking in Irish but if he makes a mistaken claim in English he should correct it in English.

Anyway I noted this problem before but only this week did I really really need a translation of the Dail debate but they don't do it, I think it should be translated (both ways). I find it strange as not everyone can speak Irish but everyone can speak English, that they don't translate those parts.

I emailed the translation service of the Oireachtas and apparently they only do live in chamber translation that TDs can use earpieces to listen to, I asked them if they ever translate the debate for TDs and they said no, they don't do 'miscellaneous' translations, I never heard the Dail debates described as 'miscellaneous' before!

Grudaire

expectationlost wrote: »

still unsure if in that correction he is still claiming prisoners were brought through Shannon Airport, because I've campaigned against its use for all those things but I don't think prisoners were brought through and it obviously doesn't help anyone for a TD to be misquoting human rights groups, puting words in their mouth as he did.

I've no problem with him speaking in Irish but if he makes a mistaken claim in English he should correct it in English.

Anyway I noted this problem before but only this week did I really really need a translation of the Dail debate but they don't do it, I think it should be translated (both ways). I find it strange as not everyone can speak Irish but everyone can speak English, that they don't translate those parts.

I emailed the translation service of the Oireachtas and apparently they only do live in chamber translation that TDs can use earpieces to listen to, I asked them if they ever translate the debate for TDs and they said no, they don't do 'miscellaneous' translations, I never heard the Dail debates described as 'miscellaneous' before!

He's saying that from evidence that it's clear that extraordinary rendition has occurred through Shannon. But not from what human rights groups have said.

I'd agree that it's a sweet trick saying apologies through Irish!

expectationlost

Grudaire wrote: »

He's saying that from evidence that it's clear that extraordinary rendition has occurred through Shannon. But not from what human rights groups have said.

yes but this where the need for subtle parsing of what he's saying comes in because rendition planes and pilots came through Shannon Airport to and from rendition operations, this is what Amnesty International has said, but prisoners on planes in Shannon IMHO don't think so.

I'd agree that it's a sweet trick saying apologies through Irish!

I was afraid to raise that notion here.

Grudaire

expectationlost wrote: »

yes but this where the need for subtle parsing of what he's saying comes in because rendition planes and pilots came through Shannon Airport to and from rendition operations, this is what Amnesty International has said, but prisoners on planes in Shannon IMHO don't think so.

That distinction is not made in the speech really. I would say that he is claiming that rendition occurred in Shannon based on the other evidence.

expectationlost wrote: »

I was afraid to raise that notion here.

Politicians are hardly friends of the language. Look at what happened last year with the language commissioner resigning, there are only a handful of politicians who care about the language-the rest give lip service.
It's fairly insulting that it's used only for loopholes rather than actual debate.

expectationlost

tbf O'Snodaigh often uses Irish in the Dail, he could simple clarified that one point and then continued in Irish.

but something happened in the Dail today, I missed it just seeing tweets about it

Today is apparently Irish Day

Wallace asked a question in English and Kenny answered in Irish, Wallace asked him to reply in English and Kenny wouldn't.

they have live translation service with a ear piece and perhaps the Day of Irish gets TDs use to fetching out the thing to use but we won't get a translation

strangley on the same topic

expectationlost

via the ST the not that maybe not coincidentally there wasn't a translator to cover a committee meeting https://www.kildarestreet.com/committees/?id=2015-03-11a.806&s=translation#g807

I note that this week is Seachtain na Gaeilge. Tá brón orm but we do not have simultaneous translation services available in the meeting room today. If members wish to put their question in Irish, that is of course their right. However, they should be aware that other members, including me, who do not have fluent Irish will not be in a position to understand their contribution. Moreover, I understand the Dr. Muldoon likewise is not fluent in the language and will be unable to respond in Irish. I propose, therefore, that any members wishing to exercise their right to put their questions in Irish may do so but should also, after the meeting, e-mail their query to the secretariat for submission to the ombudsman. Is that acceptable to Dr. Muldoon?

and Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)


Nílim sásta leis sin. Tá sé de cheart agam agus bímid ag plé leis an gCoimisinéir Teanga anseo, bímid ag plé le cúrsaí cearta. Deirtear liom go bhfuil sé de cheart agam mo theanga féin a úsáid i dTithe na Parlaiminte anseo agus tá an Cathaoirleach ag rá liom go bunúsach nach féidir liom é sin a dhéanamh. Táim ag iarraidh é sin a chur ar an taifead. Níl sé sásúil i dTithe an Oireachtais nuair is í an Ghaeilge príomhtheanga na tíre nach bhfuil sé de cheart agam mo theanga féin a úsáid i seomra choiste. Ní aon locht ar an gcoimisinéir nó ar aon duine eile ar an gcoiste é ag is é mo chearta é agus tá mo chearta á shárú orm agus níl mé sásta.

Pádraig MacLochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)

I note the Senator's disappointment. Unfortunately, there is nothing we can do today to facilitate members' right to put questions in Irish. As I said, if the Senator submits a question in Irish after the meeting, we will ensure he gets a response in due course.

Grudaire

Wallace was acting a tit 'losing' his earphones the one day a year Irish is used in the Dáil..

For the committee meeting that sounds extra cheeky to apologise without losing face.

expectationlost

Grudaire wrote: »

Wallace was acting a tit 'losing' his earphones the one day a year Irish is used in the Dáil..

a guy that never gets his questions answered was very eager to able to hear an answer directly

where did idea of Wallace "losing" his earphone come from.

Paz-CCFC

B'fhéidir go mbeadh cás na Cúirte Uachtarach Ó Murchú i gc. An Taoiseach [2010] IESC 26 suimiúil duit. Cinneadh go haon-aigne, cé gur í Gaoluinn príomh-theanga oifigiúil na tíre, nach bhfuil dualgas ginearálta ar an Stát aistriúchán de na hionstraimí reachtúla a chur ar fáil. (Tá an dualgas san ann le aghaidh phríomh-achtanna an Oireachtais). An chúis ná, nach mbeadh sé praiticiúil gach uile mion-sonra a aistriú. Ós rud é nach fiú stádas ionstraime reachtúil atá ag díospóireachtaí na Dála, déarfainn gur fasach é an cás seo nach bhfuil dualgas iad a aistriú don phobal. Ní hé sin le rá nach bhfuil cead aistriúcháin a chur ar fáil, ach níl an dualgas.



The Supreme Court case of Murchú v. An Taoiseach [2010] IESC 26 might be of interest to you. It was held unanimously that, notwithstanding the status of the primary language which Irish enjoys, there is no general obligation on the State to provide translations of statutory instruments. (That obligation is on the Sate in relation to primary acts of the Oireachtas). The reason being that it would not be practical to have to translate every minor detail. Because Dáil debates do not even have the status of statutory instruments, it would be likely that this case would be precedent that there is no obligation that they be translated for the public. That is not to say that the State are not permitted to provide translations, but there is no duty on it.

expectationlost

Paz-CCFC wrote: »

B'fhéidir go mbeadh cás na Cúirte Uachtarach Ó Murchú i gc. An Taoiseach [2010] IESC 26 suimiúil duit. Cinneadh go haon-aigne, cé gur í Gaoluinn príomh-theanga oifigiúil na tíre, nach bhfuil dualgas ginearálta ar an Stát aistriúchán de na hionstraimí reachtúla a chur ar fáil. (Tá an dualgas san ann le aghaidh phríomh-achtanna an Oireachtais). An chúis ná, nach mbeadh sé praiticiúil gach uile mion-sonra a aistriú. Ós rud é nach fiú stádas ionstraime reachtúil atá ag díospóireachtaí na Dála, déarfainn gur fasach é an cás seo nach bhfuil dualgas iad a aistriú don phobal. Ní hé sin le rá nach bhfuil cead aistriúcháin a chur ar fáil, ach níl an dualgas.



The Supreme Court case of Murchú v. An Taoiseach [2010] IESC 26 might be of interest to you. It was held unanimously that, notwithstanding the status of the primary language which Irish enjoys, there is no general obligation on the State to provide translations of statutory instruments. (That obligation is on the Sate in relation to primary acts of the Oireachtas). The reason being that it would not be practical to have to translate every minor detail. Because Dáil debates do not even have the status of statutory instruments, it would be likely that this case would be precedent that there is no obligation that they be translated for the public. That is not to say that the State are not permitted to provide translations, but there is no duty on it.

surely that refers to translations of English language Statutory Instruments into Irish?

Paz-CCFC

expectationlost wrote: »

surely that refers to translations of English language Statutory Instruments into Irish?

Níor luadh aistriúcháin Ghaoluinn nó Bhéarla. Is amhrasach go raibh Béarla go Gaeilge amháin ar intinn ag an gcúirt, im thuairimse. Is dóighl go mbeadh sé míbhunreachtúil, in aghaidh Airteagail 8, chun rialú nach bhfuil dualgas aistriúchán a dhéanamh go príomh-theanga oifigiúil na tíre, ach go bhfuil dualgas aistriúchán a dhéanamh go dtí an dara teanga.

Tabhair fé deara, chomh maith, Airteagal 8.3:"[a]ch féadfar socrú a dhéanamh le dlí d'fhonn ceachtar den dá theanga sin a bheith ina haonteanga le haghaidh aon ghnó nó gnóthaí oifigiúla ar fud an Stáit ar fad nó in aon chuid de."


It wasn't specified whether it was Irish or English translations. It is doubtful, in my opinion, that the court intended to rule only on English to Irish translations. I think it would be unconstitutional, contrary to Article 8, to rule that there is no duty to translate to the first official language, but that there is a duty to translate to the second language.

Also, note Article 8.3: "[p]rovision may, however, be made by law for the exclusive use of either of the said languages for any one or more official purposes, either throughout the State or in any part thereof."

expectationlost

Paz-CCFC wrote: »

Níor luadh aistriúcháin Ghaoluinn nó Bhéarla. Is amhrasach go raibh Béarla go Gaeilge amháin ar intinn ag an gcúirt, im thuairimse. Is dóighl go mbeadh sé míbhunreachtúil, in aghaidh Airteagail 8, chun rialú nach bhfuil dualgas aistriúchán a dhéanamh go príomh-theanga oifigiúil na tíre, ach go bhfuil dualgas aistriúchán a dhéanamh go dtí an dara teanga.

Tabhair fé deara, chomh maith, Airteagal 8.3:"[a]ch féadfar socrú a dhéanamh le dlí d'fhonn ceachtar den dá theanga sin a bheith ina haonteanga le haghaidh aon ghnó nó gnóthaí oifigiúla ar fud an Stáit ar fad nó in aon chuid de."


It wasn't specified whether it was Irish or English translations. It is doubtful, in my opinion, that the court intended to rule only on English to Irish translations. I think it would be unconstitutional, contrary to Article 8, to rule that there is no duty to translate to the first official language, but that there is a duty to translate to the second language.

Also, note Article 8.3: "[p]rovision may, however, be made by law for the exclusive use of either of the said languages for any one or more official purposes, either throughout the State or in any part thereof."

I wasn't demanding it as constitutional right more a practical one, but thanks for the useful information anyway.